Bush fast asleep when Saddam's execution happened
We went through all of this trouble to go into Iraq, remove Saddam and execute him; yet our own President -- the man responsible for this invasion -- did not even bother to stay awake when the execution took place.
George W. Bush claimed that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was a to United States security. We unilaterally went in there and deposed his regime. In 2003, once U.S. soldiers found Saddam Hussein, who was hiding in a hole near his hometown of Tikrit, Bush assured the American people that he would . Almost 3,000 U.S. soldiers and at least 50,000 Iraqi civilians lost their lives, and almost a half-trillion dollars was spent during this conflict.
Yet, while this was so important for us to go to war, remove Saddam and execute him, when the execution took place:
Bush was informed by national security adviser Stephen Hadley around6:15 p.m. CST (0015 GMT) that the execution would take place in a fewhours and was asleep when it occurred, said White House spokesman ScottStanzel.
Forget the fact that the proved Saddam Hussein was a diminishing threat, not a grave and gathering one. Forget that Saddam Hussein did not posses weapons of mass destruction. Forget that the American people were lied to over and over about this war. Still, after all this Iraq hype, shouldn't the man behind the invasion at least garner up the motivation and energy to stay awake past his normal bed time? Since he is in Texas, he would have had to fall asleep before 9 PM CT in order to miss the execution. That means he probably got ready for bed in the 8 PM hour. What President goes to bed that early? Major world events are happening, and our President chooses to sleep. This is like "My Pet Goat" all over again.
"The Nonchalant President"
"The Whatever President"
Posted by: Tony | 2006.12.30 at 02:30 AM
Guess he didn't want to bother his beautiful mind and sleep time with this event. He seems to live his life on some sort of weird time delay system.
Posted by: | 2006.12.30 at 06:10 AM
A full day of reading Shakespeare will do that to a man.
Posted by: | 2006.12.30 at 10:05 AM
not 50,000 but 650,000 Iraqi civilians... 650,000. Last September.
Posted by: | 2006.12.30 at 03:17 PM
David's right -- the number of dead Iraqis is closer to 650,000 than 50,000.
Wondering why you wrote 50,000?
Posted by: yahuda cohn | 2006.12.30 at 08:33 PM
It depends on which study you are referring to. The Lancet study says 500,000. For a few reasons, I decided to use the study with the least number possible, so that if a conservative read the material on this site he/she wouldn't accuse me of inflating the numbers. Whether it's 50,000 or 650,000, it's still a lot of people.
But I do see your point. For now on, I will go with the larger number, since the Lancet study is more accurate.
Posted by: | 2006.12.30 at 11:15 PM
George had to finish the last chapter of My Pet Goat to finalize and bring closure to the legacy of George W Bush
Posted by: makesenseofit | 2007.01.01 at 11:58 AM